Frances

I just don't think some of these characters are being such awful dicks as you say they are. Plus some of this is clearly directed at Sue, not any of her characters, because one of the arguments I see come up frequently is "Sue has done this in the past", not "Ana has done this in the past". Ana is not a character I've seen go overboard in a way that was inadmissible OOCly. In fact, I've seen very little, if any of those characters recently.

What exactly was end round grief in that? The running around and harmbatonning, or the whole thing?

This is the same fallacy that everyone seems to be jumping to. Ana was simply conducting an arrest. Whether the arrest was abusive or not, the fact that the perpetrator decided to run around and resist until they got harmbatonned was their own fault, not hers.

Attempted kidnapping. If antagonists are no longer allowed to try to kidnap station crew, we will be living in a sad day and age. I will try to keep things as simple as possible, because if I attempt to take apart every issue I find with your post individually I'll end up with an essay. The intent of Sue was not to kill someone, but to create conflict in a looser term. It happened that she encountered an individual who was armed and affiliated with the person she had just killed. At this point, the only mistake I can see she made was to not attempt to hail that individual (Katana) over radio to confirm their intents. I am not looking to hear what you think she should have done, but what you think she did do that was bad besides that, and why it was bad. Was she at fault for not trying to talk to Katana? I'm going to say yes, at least a little. Was she at fault for doing anything else? And if so, why?

She attempted to arrest someone. The reason why this situation turned into a fight is because that person decided to run, and thus the actual conflict ending in the harmbatoning should not be attributed to Sue. I don't think anyone should be blamed for it, as the situation evolved quite organically. This rule was written to prevent people from starting physical fights within the shuttle, nothing more. While a lot of factors were at play here, I believe people should have the responsibility not to /escalate/ end-round fights into physical altercations. So if you want to be a baddie or have a verbal fight with your friend, you can, but it shouldn't devolve into a fistfight.

The only reason why this should be allowed to happen is because Sue's arguments were actually right, and the complaints unfounded. In an ideal world, a person does not win a debate for being louder, or "better at arguing", but simply for being right. In practice, I do not believe Sue has been "shutting anyone up". She will get rude if you begin the attacks (not condoning this, but just saying), and attempt to reply to you politely otherwise. Some complaints against her have been maintained (she has accumulated at least two notes from similar incidents over last fall/winter), and some have been thrown out. ((Sorry for the repeated doubleposts. I'm talking to a lot of people at once and it's easier to organize this way.))

People seem to feel unwelcome, at least in some part, because they encounter IC opposition, and mistake it for OOC opposition. Or perhaps they simply dislike IC opposition. I do not know which, but if this is actually the case and is what most people effectively want, we will either have to make some major changes to certain rules, or create a new server which attempts to follow better these principles. This is a correlative fallacy.

I don't understand exactly what players are expecting to happen out of this. Should you clearly announce your attempt to kidnap someone before doing so? The original rules on ganking were put in place to prevent people from mindlessly killing everything they encounter without providing RP, not to force antagonists to provide everyone with a fair fight.

I have repeatedly asked for a single valid recent incident to be provided here. Anything at all. It still hasn't been posted. Security had a reason to arrest this person. Whether the charges were BS does not make it so that every single event following them can be thrown out. This is like saying that because someone slapped you once, you have a right to react however you want in complete impunity. Person runs away from sec, person tries to steal a weapon from sec, person gets harmbatoned. If the initial charge was ridiculous, then we should look at the initial charge being ridiculous as its own contained incident. The charge did not cause the harmbatoning. The person resisting arrest did.

Then she should have made an effort to communicate with Katana and verify their intents, as is usually common courtesy in these situations unless you've already established somehow the person is going to be hostile. We should wait to see what she has to say about that, in this case.

What ended up happening as a result of this is pretty irrelevant OOCly. We should simply consider whether Jackboot releasing Vox was good or bad. The Vox's actions after that are entirely their own, and even if one of them were to decide to outright grief the server, it should not be held against Jackboot, because his calls were obviously made under the assumption that the Vox players would roleplay properly.

i do not know how many times i will have to say this but the harmbatoning clearly came from the person resisting arrest and trying to take an officer's weapon sdsjkgfjghjfs

The problem is that you guys were in space, and you pretty clearly came at her holding a weapon, so there's not much that could've been done. You can communicate in an atmosphere, and I have indeed seen Sue, as an armed antag, communicate with armed members of the crew without resorting to hostilities. But in this case, she could not have guessed your intent. You see the friend of the person you just killed come at you with a weapon, the general assumption is that they are out for revenge.

I will maintain that the call, although bad IC, was justified for the sake of roleplay.

You have already gone into that by calling Sue's actions unjust. You cannot complain about something, then simply dismiss evidence presented against you that would make this complaint invalid because you are not interested in dealing with it. That's putting thoughts into someone's head, and you can't really do that. Everyone reacts differently to conflict, and I think Sue's reaction was realistic. This is the crux of the issue here. People making these complaints essentially believe that security should be held to an absolute standard to always to their jobs, no matter what. I don't believe this should be the case - and in fact it breaks realism more than it creates it. If people are supposed to simply stand there, do their jobs, never get upset, and take all insults and provocations from antags and crew alike with a smile, we will end up with an incredibly sterile gameworld.

If you guys want to abandon the debate, understand that you did so of your own volition. There's about 6 posts of people debating Vox behavior as a whole, which was then split into its own topic. You are free to bring the complaint back on track by explaining clearly what you are still dissatisfied with, and what you would like to see done against it. If you're giving up, don't come back later saying "well this bad thing happened but nobody wanted to deal with it", because that decision is your own.

I don't know how much I want to argue single incidents in this thread (because they're already being debated into other threads), but I believe we were trying to establish what was done was not ganking. Two crewmembers were not killed indiscriminately. Two crewmembers died trying to fight antags (for one), or operate around antags after antags had killed crew (for the other). This is not the kind of behavior that should be punished OOCly.

Does a HoP overstepping their powers to free Vox constitute bad roleplay? I have been tempted, in the past, to go against direct orders as a member of sec to help certain convicts I believed deserved leniency or were being unjustly charged (things like a nuke op giving themselves up out of fear but still facing full charges from NT, for example). I understand that these things obviously constitute a fault from an IC perspective, but should we expect heads to always uphold their duty to perfection, even during antag rounds?

Yes. The EOR grief/fighting rule actually exists to prevent people from fighting on the shuttle, because it is a very small space most of the round's players end up with at the same time, and fights on it have a tendency to devolve into something terrible. An addendum was actually recently added to this rule, which allows conflict to progress organically if it was already started before the shuttle docking. In this case, Officer A acts like a hardass towards Person B, insults person B, person B talks back, gets arrested over bullshit by officer A, person B resists, tries to steal an officer's weapon, and gets beaten as a result. (Not in a way that imo was excessive, given that it was intended to be a single baton click. I actually went and hit myself with a baton on the server just now, and it created two messages (with the "stunned" message missing), but you can clearly see by the logs repeating ("beaten" "beaten" "stunned") that these are messages attached to the same action, even though I'm not sure why zonk got three messages and I only got two. You cannot ignore the fact that this person was harmbatonned for running away from sec and trying to steal an officer's weapon, not simply for saying something mean.

The reason why I am calling out your character on her actions is because she Now I do not particularly care whether you want to try your chances fighting off sec, but it does not paint your character as a blameless victim. Also, running from the cops is never a good idea. If security tries to arrest you peacefully, and you start running away, of course they'll start to chase you and attempt to subdue you. No security officer will go "oh, we scared the perp off, better give them a break then." I've actually let people off the hook before when I was going to arrest them because they displayed clear regret of their actions (as well as showed they were in over their heads), but this isn't what you did here. You basically insulted back somebody who insulted you, then ran. (The harmbatoning happening at endround was minor. I'm willing to guess the complaint would've been made regardless of when during the round the actions happened, as they were quite dubious without context.) Anyway, yes, there is a certain standard of conduct everyone must adhere to, but I do not believe it was broken here. The character in question was just nearly blown up, and their player had not initially planned or expected to be playing in the HoS role. Additionally, the only fault that can really be held against Ana was to be overly strict and stick someone with a BS charge, whereas the harmbatoning resulted from reasonable escalation of conflict.

What about escalation of conflict? (And again, please do consider the harmbatoning was minor.)

They can, at which point we establish whether the complaint was valid or not. Are you saying players should cause no conflict whatsoever unless they are antags? And what about antags themselves, how is what they are doing not equating to disruption, by that logic?

I do think Sue is being unfairly targeted. I do not think she (and other players) are being targeted because of "blood feuds" or personal grudges, but because of the overall sentiment certain people have against characters creating conflict, or not acting like perfectly responsible citizens ICly. This entire thread exists to call out and discuss this sentiment. Calling out a person by name and saying "I always thought of you as being better than that" is definitely somewhere within the realm of pettiness, especially when it is your first reaction to being confronted with something they have said you do not like. I understand people getting frustrated and wanting to share that frustration, but it does not serve Inverted's point well.

The harmbaton being used twice was an accident, one that Sue already apologized for. The intent was not to cause serious harm, or to go as far as to break bones. The intent was to use more force than necessary, although the unintended consequences of that (ribs breaking) should have been fully dealt with IC, not as a player complaint. Security chose to chase you, because you ran away from them. I am not sure what you expected, but people losing their cool because you act like a shit (yes, Ana did, so did your character by resisting arrest) is something that makes perfect sense for a roleplay server. We are here to create interesting situations, not to evaluate how good people would be if they were real cops. Does that mean everyone who is not playing as an antag should be expected to act like an angel at all times?

I don't mind Vox being written as a cowardly race of space thiefs. It complements nicely the often fanatically confrontational syndie ops. However, I don't think this is a trope that every Vox player should have to follow religiously. As long as the general sentiment of it is preserved (and Vox take the inviolate seriously), I have no issue with Vox caving under pressure, or moving away from traditional Vox beliefs when confronted with unusual situations. For example, let's say a Vox has been in a fight and attacked by humans. Most Vox would attempt to withdraw at that point, but I don't think a Vox getting upset and deciding to pursue a fight (at the risk of their own demise) would constitute poor roleplay. I have seen Vox depicted with a wide variety of personalities and motivations, and this is perfectly fine by me. Of course, should we find that no one makes the slightest effort to respect general Vox ideals, we might have to start enforcing stricter rules. (AKA 1 Vox freaking out within reason is good. But every Vox freaking out all the time and essentially playing as a second Nuke mode is bad.)